PASabreFan

No offense, this is a loser's mentality. We'll trade Jack to try and get better, but he'll destroy us if he's in our conference. Do we never make the final in this scenario?

Define wealthy. East Resources was 10 years old in 1993. She was orphaned in Korea and was working as a waitress in Olean.

I bate with waited breath.

What an accomplished woman. It's funny that a bunch of guys are opining on this. I wonder what real women of accomplishment think of Kim.

Where was the outrage when Terry, and Terry alone, was introduced as the owner of the Sabres?

I really think you've exhausted my interest in this topic. Thank you. The bit about my wishing it was legit and other distortions are the end for me. It's telling you resort to that. Go watch the goal and at least get the description of it right next time.

For the record, Hull deflected the puck on goal, the puck stayed in the crease, Hull entered the crease, Hull fished at the puck, the puck rebounded off Hasek and left the crease, Hull left the crease, Hull kicked the puck while the puck was outside the crease, Hull's skate entered the crease as the puck went through and left the crease, Hull shot the puck with his skate inside the crease and his stick outside the crease, and scored. Clarification 10 talks about a player entering the crease and staying there while the puck rebounds outside the crease. It doesn't matter. It was a good hockey goal that shouldn't have counted because of the ridiculous crease rule and because there was no way to write a clarification that covered the bizarre scenario above. The best the league could do was to say that a player who was maintaining control of the puck could have a skate in the crease ahead of the puck, akin to the offside rule of skating backwards into the zone. That scenario would be straightforward: think of a player on a breakaway deking the goalie and cutting across the top of the crease before scoring. Taro and I agree on that, and I don't appreciate the lecturing and insults, which are unnecessary. Even nfreeman saw that, and I am not a MFP. The question I think is interesting is whether it's fair to rob the Stars of recognition for winning a Cup after a bitterly fought series ended by a classically good hockey goal. Awarded, not won? I can't agree with it. It's disrespectful. I also can't get on board the expediency theory ("just give it to 'em") or, worse, the idea of a conspiracy to ensure Dallas won the Cup (or to ensure Buffalo didn't). Taro can pretend to know every officiating procedure in place in 1999, because of course he does, but he has no idea what the procedure in place was for when those clarifications kicked in. You couldn't just have the video judge call down and tell the ref Hull's skate was in the crease and have the goal waived off. What about the breakaway scenario above? Would you call down and say his skate was in the crease? Of course it had to go to the director officiating. Under pressure, he blew the call. Can you blame him? He thought possession was the key. It was control. Had he made the call 100 times before? Of course not. Some big lying coverup? They changed the rule after the season. Good for the NHL. Maybe they changed the definition of control to include kicking. So what? As an aside, according to Vogl at The Athletic, Lewis maintained as of 2019 that he made the right call. Bettman did the same in Dallas on some anniversary of it. I'd still love to see that memo. I've asked the NHL for it. I didn't get a reply. These posts will self-destruct in four hours, only to reappear the next time Taro brings up the subject.

Wrong verb.

My stomach churns every time I have to REALLY like a post and am forced to click on one of Terry's STANleycups.

He brought it up. I'm the carp.

Clarification number 10 states, "An attacking player takes a shot on net and after doing so, skates into the crease. The initial shot deflects outside the crease. The original attacking player, still in the crease, recovers the puck, which is now outside the crease, and scores. Result: Goal is disallowed." It's not a perfect fit.

Delayed reaction: "If we come back down here, we're getting TPD." TPD is Tampa Police Department, I'm pretty sure. That's incredible.

If I looked at you, I could tell you were angry?

Oh, geez. Ignored is a loaded word here. You're close to joining Taro in conspiracy country. The problem was that the memo came out too late in the regular season and Clarification #9 might never have been applied before Game 6. Lewis , under pressure, blew it.

A memo with several clarifications was sent out in March. And, no, it was not written after Game 6. Darcy acknowledged receiving it in March. And Thorne and Clement talked about seeing it before the series. One of the clarifications stated that a player who maintained control of the puck could precede the puck in the crease and score. Clarification #9: "An attacking player maintains control of the puck but skates into the crease before the puck enters the crease and shoots the puck into the net. Result: Goal is allowed. The offside rule rationale applies (in the sense that a player with the puck can precede it into the opposing zone." Forget the definition of control in 1999. The key word is "maintains." Had Hull legally controlled the puck, that control would have been only momentary. Taro should be the one to stop obfuscating. I am not saying the goal was legit. The fact goals like it were legit for decades before the crease rule and will be legit as long as hockey is played on this earth after 1999 makes it tolerable for me. It's not like the puck was shot through the side of the net. It's also tolerable because in my opinion at whatever ungodly hour it was, Bryan Lewis mixed up possession and control. (Hull did maintain technical possession of the puck before scoring. It was that close to being a good goal.) The stuff about Bettman being behind a curtain is Taro's opinion. It will remain that until he gives us some evidence. Yes, the review was not only wrong, it was quick, and they opened the doors. Dallas won that Cup — on a bad call. That's sports.

Can't wear opposing team's jersey?

The Bills had to roll snake eyes about 12 times to win that game. I don't think they win the game if Beebe's TD is called back. And I don't hear anyone saying to this day the NFL cheated for them.

And you're not predictable or bitter. Be careful of karma. The Sabres' first Cup might be awarded and not won. Still waiting for your smoking gun evidence about the umbrella man in 216 or something. Will that be released 50 years after your death? Heyo. Summer reruns

Not into lips? That it should be shot into outer space with Elon Musk and the other rich scumbags who want to go destroy even more planets, never to return?

That remains a ridiculous take. Were the Bills also awarded the comeback win?

Do you mean because he sees himself in his hires? He sees himself as a one-time newbie? Or do you mean he actually hired newbies at East Resources? In high positions though?

Said one person ever.

Said no one ever.

The time has come. How do other owners do it? How involved are they in hockey operations? How do they view their role? Let's see what we can dig up. Islanders are top of mind today. Their co-owner, Jon Ledecky, was featured in a NY Post article last year. https://nypost.com/2020/08/16/islanders-owner-jon-ledecky-pumped-about-playoffs-new-arena/

This might be as goodly as you've ever spoke! New owner. Franchise center gone. Legit hockey man at the top. A real coach. Boom.